Skip to comments.Ben Bernanke Just Told A Massive Lie About Milton Friedman
Posted on 10/01/2012 11:24:45 AM PDT by Perdogg
Ben Bernanke Just Told A Massive Lie About Milton Friedman And I Can Prove It
Ben Bernanke is so desperate to find support regarding his steal from the poor and give to the 0.01% policies he is now telling blatant lies about famous, dead economists that cant refute what he says. In this case Milton Friedman. In his Q&A today, The Bernank claimed:
*BERNANKE: MILTON FRIEDMAN WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED WHAT FED DOING
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
“*BERNANKE: MILTON FRIEDMAN WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED WHAT FED DOING”
Horse feathers! Just like a lot of GOP elite like to say Friedman would have been for ‘free trade’ when pushing the likes of NAFTA. Friedman said NAFTA was NOT free trade, but government managed trade, and he was against it.
If Mitt Romney is smart, he will look for multiple chances to call Obama a liar, to his face, during the debate.
Make it more than just a rehash of "There you go again". That would be boring. Just say, "Mr. President ... that was a lie. And you knew it. I cannot believe that you just deliberately lied to the American people, in the middle of a presidential debate. You should be ashamed. Are you that desperate? Are you that immature? Are you willing to just say anything at all so that you can hold on to power and not face up to your mistakes?"
Friedman’s monetary policy is essentially ordering the Fed to create money at a 3% yearly rate. Fix the target and leave policy alone.
Of course, his analysis of the monetary activities during the depression paints mainly a story of the authorities not having a true picture of the monetary growth rates or contrary legislative policies negating the monetary authority’s intentions. It was a massive cluster-f@*k with one hand not knowing what the other was doing.
Friedman was mostly definitely in favor of Free Trade.
“..........Just say, “Mr. President ... that was a lie. And you knew it.....”
Seems to me the prolificacy of their lying is indicative they live in a perspective that is a lie unto itself, therefore their lying is as natural to them as breathing.
I don’t think there’s much that can be done for them on that issue, but for the sake of the Nation, and on behalf of the sane try to make all aware of the Left’s chronic anomaly.
The Left is comprised of abnormals.
“Mr. President ... that was a lie. And you knew it. I cannot believe that you just deliberately lied to the American people, in the middle of a presidential debate. You should be ashamed. Are you that desperate? Are you that immature? Are you willing to just say anything at all so that you can hold on to power and not face up to your mistakes?”
PERFECT! If he were to say those very words, Obama would self destruct before our eyes. Oh, how I would love that!
I do think Obama is fragile. I do think he could be broken on live TV. No one ever talks back to him or puts him on the spot. He’s under a lot of pressure, no teleprompter in sight ... it wouldn’t be that hard.
Milton Friedman contributed a lot to economic theory. However, his most signicant, practical, real world accompishment may have been his role in designing the withholding system for collecting income taxes. He worked for the Treasury at that time and believed that the government needed to collect the money faster than it would if it waited until the next year. Also, many people wouldn’t save the money long enough to pay taxes the next year. It was not a simple problem to solve.
read the Austrians on Milton Friedman, they don’t think he was worth much as an economist, he was mostly another Gubermint captured Economist.
“Friedman was mostly definitely in favor of Free Trade.”
Yes, you’re right, he was. What he said was that agreements like NAFTA are NOT free trade, they are government managed trade agreements.
Years ago, one day on CSPan, he was on a panel discussion with one of his former students, Dick Army, who was pushing Nafta when he made precisley that comment...”It’s managed trade”...
Unfortunately Army and many others didn’t listen to him.
A few years ago, I found the quote, when I get time, I’ll look again.
Ok...right on top, it’s not the same quote I heard, but close.
“Milton Friedman: I would hope so. NAFTA is misnamed, it’s not a Free Trade Agreement, it’s a Managed Trade Agreement. I supported NAFTA, as a lesser of evils,...”
Well the issue is - is NAFTA better than the system preceding it?
Is it a step in the direction of Free Trade? Probably.
Anyone believing such stuff is not worthy of much consideration.
NAFTA had the effect of wiping out the rural Mexican small farmers who couldn’t compete with American corn prices. And huge numbers of them came north across the border.
NAFTA is also in the process of letting Mexican trucks operate in the USA at will, not just taking loads north across the border.
It’s my hope that those who push and promote NAFTA get to enjoy having their neighborhoods turned into illegal alien camps, and that they get to personally encounter the diving standards of Mexico. They deserve it.
If you can come up with nothing but such allegations then you have no real argument against NAFTA. Protectionist policies always protects SOME ONE, farmer, workers, capitalists, some one. But they also always exploit the whole and always cause someone ELSE to pay for the protection.
Farmers leaving the land are more likely to wind up working in Mexican factories set up to benefit from NAFTA than they are to make the dangerous and expansive trip North where hiring is way down. Only by encouraging economic growth there can Mexico provide enough jobs in Mexico to keep Mexicans there.
I understand you don’t believe it but Free Trade improves life in both countries. It is one of the few theories that almost every economist (no matter his ideology) believes to be true. And its logic is unassailable.
They aren’t allegations. They are facts.
But since those facts make your idol of Free Trade less than perfect you choose to wish uncomfortable facts away. For most of us free trade is a policy, not a religion. I think I know what camp you are in.
I think you will be in deep stuff if you try and compare economic and financial understanding with me. I have been studying it for over forty years.
You can continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding if you wish but there is no chance of refuting the fact that Free Trade is a positive for both participants.
More than likely the problem you are facing is the result of not enough Free Trade rather than too much.
Besides the alternative to Free Trade is government managed trade which increases government power in the economy at the cost of private interests. It also increases prices to all consumers for the goods they purchase as well as reduce their choices of what to buy.
” I have been studying it for over forty years.”
Then you should sue for your money back. Boasting about your imagined expertise doesn’t impress me one iota, it just marks you as one more oaf with an inflated opinion of himself, much like the lawn jockey in the White House.
But since you have all of this economic expertise then you know that international labor arbitrage is not the same as Ricardian comparative advantage. Paul Craig Roberts has written on this, and it applies to NAFTA. Certainly you’ve read his paper and have simply forgotten it, economic heavyweight that you are.
Conclusions drawn by Ricardo about Comparative Advantage are still valid. The lack of freedom of movement by labor across borders MODIFIES those conclusions but does not negate them.
Are you really going to claim that Mexican tariffs which protect small farmers (temporarily) are good for either economy?
Or that the social problems you refer to are the result of anything other than the refusal to defend our Southern border? NAFTA is not the cause of them and they certainly existed LONG before NAFTA.
With proper enforcement of immigration law NAFTA would not cause ONE more Mexican to come North.
“Conclusions drawn by Ricardo about Comparative Advantage are still valid.”
Of course they are. They simply aren’t the same as international labor arbitrage, a factor that Ricardo did not have to consider in the early 19th century. But this is all developed in Robert’s paper that I referenced in my previous post.